Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300
- 319)
TUESDAY 23 NOVEMBER 1999
MR BILL
CALLAGHAN, MS
JENNY BACON
AND MR
DAVID EVES
300. What criteria do you use to sort that one
out?
(Mr Eves) We have developed, and refined in the light
of experience, a workload formula over a number of years now which
enables resources to be allocated by sector and by regional characteristics.
It is still true, for example, the Midlands is a heavily industrialised
area. It is still true, increasingly at the moment, that London
and the south east are particularly active in the construction
sector. We also look at the accident and industrial disease frequency
rates in various sectors. According to the priorities set by the
Commission for attention to particular sectors, it is possible
for us to allocate resources. This will result in some variation
between regions.
301. Does that mean you are less likely to receive
an inspection if you are in industrial operation in London and
the south east than you would be in the Midlands and vice-versa,
if you have got a construction site in the north west you are
less likely to have an inspection?
(Mr Eves) No, I do not think it works like that. In
London and the south east you will have a higher allocation of
inspectors to construction than to manufacturing industry because
the balance is different in that region from, say, in the Midlands.
The Midlands will have a heavy allocation of inspectors for manufacturing
plants. The way the formula works there is an inspection rating
scheme which enables us to judge the risks at individual workplace
level based on intelligence from previous inspections and from
accident reports.
302. If the previous inspection numbers were
low you are going to have a problem if you are basing your facts
on those inspections?
(Mr Eves) We will also take account of the time that
has elapsed since the last inspection, but there will be other
sources of intelligence. If there have been accidents reported,
if we are getting complaints from a particular workplace, it will
bring it up the priority list quite rapidly.
303. Do you think it is a bit hit and miss?
(Mr Eves) No, I do not think it is hit and miss actually.
There are judgments to be made all the time. Every year a region
will develop its operating plan, but within that the inspectors,
five or six of them, who will be managing the teams of inspectors
throughout that year, can use discretion. They can bring particular
factors to bear, local factors, and, as Jenny said earlier, maybe
a national decision or a regional decision to carry out a blitz
that may affect one particular sector more than another; or it
may be across a particular geographical area. It depends what
we are trying to achieve.
304. If you decide to have a particular blitz
of a particular sector, does that mean other sectors will lose
resources?
(Mr Eves) No, I would not say that. This will be planned
in terms of the year's activity—there will at some point
be a blitz. In agriculture, for example, some things are more
appropriate to do in the summer than in the winter. When pesticides
are being sprayed we want to be there when the activity is going
on. That may require a very short-term strengthening of the agriculture
team but, at the same time, there will be a balance later in the
year. It is properly planned.
305. Are you satisfied with the current levels
of reporting under RIDDOR?
(Ms Bacon) No, is the short answer.
306. How do you think you can improve that?
(Ms Bacon) The first thing to say is that the level
has come up from somewhere round about 31 per cent. in 1990 to
47 per cent. now, so it is moving in the right direction. What
can we do? First of all, we have been piloting telephone reporting;
that has been extremely successful, and we are now going to extend
that nationwide. That has certainly increased the ease with which
reporting can be done and, therefore, the numbers of accidents
we are getting reported. Secondly, we will be using Internet reports
just as soon as we can get it geared up; although that is not
going to reach everybody because not everybody is on the Internet.
Thirdly, we can carry on making absolutely clear that there is
a requirement to report. For example, we took 25 prosecutions
last year for failures to report. It is our usual problem of awareness-raising
and reaching small firms in particular that we do not necessarily
reach by inspection; we have got to do it by working through intermediary
organisations, through the main channels of contact.
307. In what sort of examples do you get that
message across? How do you manage that with small firms?
(Ms Bacon) We would use local press to advertise,
and trade press, as being an important way of getting messages
across. Clearly, if there are prosecutions we try to make sure
they are reported in the local press, which is likely to get read,
and the need to report accidents is seen as part of that. Local
authority inspectors can do quite a lot; not just in going round
and inspecting the health and safety, but also passing on messages
about general regulatory requirements. We try to use trade associations,
TECs and Businesslink to get across the absolute basic essentials
of health and safety law and the requirements on people, but it
is not easy. The Commission has been making this a priority.
(Mr Callaghan) Indeed, the Commission will be considering
a strategy to reach small firms. I certainly see it as a priority
for myself to engage with small firms more actively. The advent
of the Small Business Service I think is a chance now to focus
our effort and attention and when that organisation is up and
running I shall certainly be making contact.
Mr Brake
308. I have a specific question on the construction
sector. To what extent, if any, are prosecutions in the construction
sector and preventative work being hindered by what I understand
is the very large number of non English-speaking workers on construction
sites? I understand there are a large number of Rumanians and
Czechs who do not understand English and therefore are not able
to participate in prosecutions because they cannot serve as witnesses
unless interpreters are present; and also it is very difficult
for companies to pass on information to them. What action are
you taking on that specific point?
(Mr Eves) Inspectors can certainly obtain the services
of interpreters. We normally do that through the local police
station who know who the local interpreters are. The actual language
is not itself an impediment to prosecution if we decide that is
the way ahead. The second part of your question was about whether
construction employers find it difficult to pass on health and
safety information if their workforce are not good in English.
The way the law stands, it is imperative that that is part of
their risk assessment process; if they have got workers who cannot
read the signs, or cannot understand the manuals, or cannot hear
what the supervisors are saying, that there are steps taken to
ensure they are able to work safely. That is absolutely clear.
(Ms Bacon) We do produce leaflets on the most basic
obligations and things that employees should know about in a fairly
wide variety of languages.
Mrs Dunwoody
309. This is totally unrealistic, is it not?
Not a quarter of a mile from here there is a very large construction
site which is now completed where not one single job was done
with vertical integration. Every bit of it was subcontracted,
from the design upwards and downwards. Large numbers of people
working on the site were Eastern Europeans with a range of language,
over about eight or nine different languages. Not only did they
not understand what they were being told by the people they were
working with, there was no likelihood of anybody giving them any
instruction on health and safety at work. How much work is being
done on this basis? It all sounds marvellous -they get leaflets
in different languages. Most of them do not get instructions in
the language they understand.
(Ms Bacon) This is something that the employer and
the subcontractors take into account.
310. How many employers in the construction
industry have been prosecuted in large construction schemes, all
of them subcontracting, over the last year?
(Mr Eves) About 40 per cent. of our enforcement activity,
that is prosecutions and notices, are against the construction
sector, if you like to put it that way.
311. 40 per cent. of this less than 10 per cent?
(Mr Eves) That is about accidents, I think you were
saying 10 per cent. We are also taking preventative actions, of
course.
312. What are we talking about in numbers?
(Mr Eves) Notices, we are serving about 10,000 or
11,000 a year. 40 per cent. of those, roughly, are going into
the construction sector and are actually preventing accidents
from happening.
Mr Brake
313. When I visited a site in my constituency
the inspector I went round with noticed that the loading bays
at the top of the houses being constructed did not have any scaffolding
round them, so she issued a notice. To what extent will the HSE
or the HSC expect that company to take action across its whole
building portfolio in the country? Are you able to take up further
prosecutions against them in other parts of the country if they
fail to learn the lessons that needed to be learned in my particular
constituency?
(Mr Eves) We are trying very hard to track contractors
who have got multiple site operations going on but are not always
multiple at the same time, of course. Many contractors are national,
some are regional and some are very local. Where they are employing
contractors they may be employing local contractors or they may
be employing contractors from another part of the country, it
depends how specialised that is. Our database is grappling with
the changing nature of the construction industry, and subcontractorisation
is absolutely rife and they change from week to week. A firm will
be established for one particular job and then dissolved.
314. In this case the notice was issued on the
main contractor, a large firm of house builders.
(Mr Eves) In that case, I am pretty confident with
a large contractor, certainly with a national or even regional
profile, the word would go round to inspectors in other regions.
We have a construction sector or national interest group based
in London, and part of its job is to ensure that this sort of
intelligence is passed around. It is part of the learning the
lessons business. It is learning the lessons for individual companies
as well as for the industry as a whole.
Mr Cummings
315. The Government has told the Committee it
is "concerned that criminal penalties for breaches of health
and safety law do not always seem to match the severity of the
offence". I believe you also agree with this sentiment. What
would you like to see in relation to changes to legislation in
order to make prosecutions easier and penalties higher?
(Mr Callaghan) We await the outcome of the strategic
appraisal. I hope, following from that, there will be agreement
between ourselves and the Government on the need for more severe
penalties. We look forward to legislation on that. I would also
note that, what is known in shorthand, the Howe judgment
does provide the basis for higher fines. This has already, I think,
been incorporated in some recent sentencing decisions.
316. Are you satisfied your inspectors are pressing
for higher penalties?
(Ms Bacon) Yes.
317. Are you partly at fault in accepting lower
penalties?
(Ms Bacon) Particularly since the Howe judgment
their hand has been strengthened in arguing in court that penalties
should be higher, or that the sentencing should be referred to
the higher court if the £20,000 maximum is acting as an impediment.
Our inspectors are very much sensitised to that. Could I just
say, we would want to see imprisonment for most health and safety
offences to be available. We would like to see £20,000 being
the maximum for all health and safety offences, rather than the
main ones. Those are two main things we would like straight away.
The other thing we have supported and the Commission have supported
is the Law Commission's proposals on involuntary manslaughter,
which would give an offence of corporate killing and two offences
of acting recklessly and gross negligence in the workplace. Both
of those make it easier for us to refer prosecutions to the Crown
Prosecution Service for manslaughter.
318. That has been extremely useful, but do
you regard use of prohibition/improvement notices as a substitute
to prosecuting companies? Would you like to serve more notices,
or less notices?
(Ms Bacon) We would like to serve more notices. We
are, in fact, building up the number of notices we serve.
Chairman
319. When you say "building up", how
much of a percentage increase are we going to see over the next
12 months?
(Ms Bacon) We do not have a target as such; we have
a management indicator. I think we are looking at a 30 per cent.
increase over the next three years on prohibition and enforcement
notices generally. Again, you have to have a basis for doing it.
You cannot pluck a figure from the air and say, "This is
what we are going to do". You have to find things going wrong
that merit an improvement notice or a prohibition notice.
|
